Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Jalna Mosque bomb attack (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  13:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Jalna Mosque bomb attack

AfDs for this article:
2004 Jalna Mosque bomb attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING .There were no deaths and all the accused were acquitted.The case is closed due to lack of evidence and it appears no further appeal has been made against the acquittal. Clearly there no lasting impact here.There is also a issue of WP:BLPCRIME about naming the Alleged preceptors in the article Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fairly recent AfD ended in No consensus. Nothing has made me change my previous stance of keeping the article. Per WP:GNG, good sources/references. Third party sources. Per WP:INDEPTH. BabbaQ (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The first AFD was in September 2016 -- by no means is that considered "recent". "Per GNG" is a WP:ATA as is "per indepth".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Fairly recent" is actually a good description. It's more than a year so can be relisted but as the coverage is ungoing the question that rises is "why again?" gidonb (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD was in September 2016 and closed as No consensus and it clearly fails WP:LASTING and all coverage is routine and there is no ongoing or continued coverage and no news reports beyond WP:PRIMARYNEWS on the day .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

  • Now there are news reports that the incident took place ,trial started and they were acquitted and all the book merely mention the incident without even a full sentence solely dedicated to this incident only mention it along with other incidents none of them are indepth and none of them discuss the incident specifically in detail even the brief mention is a general and there is not even one article gives significant coverage about the incident clearly fail WP:INDEPTH and nothing after 2012 when the verdict came out failing WP:LASTING.Further all the accused have been acquitted and no further investigation is going on and this case is closed permanantly.
  • 1 Brief News about the incident 2004
  • 2 Brief News about the incident 2004 .

A brief news story about the trial there is no continued coverage between 2004 and 2010

  • 3 Brief news that the case starts 2010

A brief news story about the acquittal no coverage between 2010 and 2012.

  • 4 Brief news that are acquitted 2012

None of the references are indepth all are clearly routine news .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the fact that the accused were acquitted does make throwing a bomb at a house of prayer a non-terror act (either by someone else who wasn't accused or reasonable doubt) - and in any event terror/non-terror status (or the number of victims) of the alleged incident is not a factor per WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG - what matters is whether there are lasting and persistent sourcing. In this case, we have some - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. The acquittal may be relevant in terms of removing of the BLP names currently in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Çomment thanks for your work .I leave it to the closer but going through some of the links most of them are mere mentions and clearly lack WP:INDEPTH and fails WP:LASTING nothing after 2012 when the verdict was given .
  • 5 merely mentions unknown assailants threw bombs in 2011
  • merely mentions unknown assailants threw crude bombs in 2006
  • merely mentions about Incidents of bomb blasts in Parbhani,Jalna and Aurangabad in Maharashtra in 2009
  • By Asghar ali Engineer merely mentions unknown motor cycle riders throw bombs in 2006
  • Mentions about the blast By Asghar ali Engineer mere mention in 2005
  • Not sure whether the others are Reliable sources but this mere mention published in 2008 and mentions in 2008 .
  • (Note mentioned the year when the Book or article was published) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eight years of ongoing national coverage in the world's largest democracy, with a notable free press. Covered in a number of books. Article does need improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no continued or ongoing coverage for 8 years in 2004 the incident takes place it is reported then in 2010 the case starts and in 2012 they are acquitted .There is no continued coverage beyond routine news that is for 1 day in 2004 ,2010 and 2012 just 3 to 4 days the newspaper have really covered it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This incidence was mentioned in a Paksitani newspaper literally this year (2017). The mention may be passing, but keep in mind that it has been over a decade. I feel that still satisfies WP:LASTING, especially since it "act[s] as a precedent or catalyst for something else." This was the first in a series of Hindu nationalist attacks in the years following such as the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombing. The concerns about WP:BLP seem reasonable though. Kamalthebest (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks .There has no significant coverage at anytime and could not find one article solely dedicated to this incident apart form the news reports anytime since 2004 and Thanks for pointing it out this the first piece I could find after 2012 articles through it briefly mentions it along with Jalna, Parbhani (2003) and Purna (in 2004) . Hence feel it fails WP:LASTING.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failure of WP:LASTING. There is clearly no reason why this article should be kept, it has still not gained any notability despite it occurred so long ago. Orientls (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:EVENT due to lack of proper coverage by media.
  • Only one result in Google news search
Non-notable event as there was no casualty. Accused were acquitted. It's not even proved what was the motive behind the blast. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Also fails WP:EVENT because of the lack of coverage and even during the heydays the coverage was short. Lorstaking (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Editors need to actually read the sources. Passing mentions are not synonymous with further analysis and there is no indication of a lasting impact. I think there is a confusion between quality indepth sources and finding any news piece that briefly mentions it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. News and book searches show that this attack was and still is widely covered in India. gidonb (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:LASTING .Editors need to actually read the sources. Notability is being presumed on basis of non existent significant coverage sources reminds one of Don Quixote .86.168.36.155 (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Fails WP:GNG and it was only reported initially and has ended up with nothing interest that it warrants a separate article like Marvellous Spiderman notes, i.e. fails WP:LASTING. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Really, the proper solution is to create a list to which all these likely religiously-motivated attacks on mosques which are borderline notable can be merged to, but such a list does not exist and Violence against Muslims in India only lists the most serious incidents. This incident was covered in-depht at the time, [9][10] received coverage during the history of the trial, [11][12][13] and is still cited in adademic works as an example of Hindu religious violence against Indian Muslims. [14][15][16]. The level of coverage in academic sources as part of a nexus of other similar attacks militates against outright deletion.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say cannot see any level of coverage in academic journals almost all of them given before the verdict including the statement came out now no investigation is going on in this case
  • 1:Mentions a list of terrorist incidents including Jalna copied from FakeTerrorism Watch Wordpress and the list given here in the book is taken directly from FakeTerrorism Watch Wordpress here mentioned in the book itself the wordpress site states Most of the articles are taken from the major news channels with source link provided on the bottom.
  • 2:2011 states Unkwown assilants throw crude bombs
3:2010 only states An Indian media report noted that "the involvement of Hindu groups in terror activities was suspected" mentions various incidents including JalnaPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you looked at academic journals, but a Google Scholar search of "Jalna mosque 2004 bomb" gives what looks like 10 papers discussing the attack as an example of Hindu violence against Muslims, which only strengthens why this should be kept or merged somewhere as an alternative to deletion. As for your other points:
1. It's a source that the author, Dr. Puniyani who is a professor and prominent activist on the issue, [17][18] considered and decided to include. The fact that from the blog there is taken from major news channel with source links, is a sign that it's a source which has editorial standards, and that would've been part of the consideration in the author deciding to include such a list.
2. The source does state that the crude bombs happened and the number of injuries, but is discussed in the context of communal violence in India. The author, Prof. Kumar, is an Indian criminal law professor and used this attack as a prominent example in a section about "official reports of communal violence" in a book about anti-Muslim communal violence in India.
3.The point of the MEMRI source, like the other two books I cited, was to show that continued to be cited as a prominent example of Hindu attacks on Muslims years after the incident. The presence of such academic sources mentioning this context behind the attack is sufficient to keep this for now and/or seriously consider an alternative to deletion such as merging this to a relevant list/article on similar attacks instead of outright deletion, which would follow how academic RS treat it. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another non-notable incident that fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Sources provided above were only initial reports that basically plagiarized each other, and such random incidents occur a lot. Per WP:GNG we need much more than that. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2004_Jalna_Mosque_bomb_attack_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137512877"